Can somebody explain to me the general disdain for SP?

[Henning]

Now those ultralight chumps have a gov issued real pilots license, same as you and me. Not a cracker box one as before SP. More mental work to shunt them out of the perceived in group. Mommy my ego has a booboo.

No, the ultralight Pt 103 guys have nothing if they don't want it, and I'm fine with that. If the minimal mental work to obtain a PP "shunts" someone out of being a pilot they shouldn't be hauling passengers, they're just too damned stupid or lazy to be given that responsibility. If one lacks the medical capacity to obtain a Class III medical, there are reasonable arguments that they should be limited in how much damage they can cause, hence the weight, speed, and passenger restrictions that come with SP. There is no ego bruising involved, and I'd hazard to guess that many people who raise this argument are on psychiatric medications that restrict them from obtaining a medical which would kinda prove that the system is correct.

 

[KeithASanford]

Don't think you will ever see the 150 qualify for light sport,The cessnas and Cherokee 140 s are to plentifull and to cheap to purchase which could kill the sales of the new LSAs.cessna launched their own lsa to compete and piper had a try at it.

I recently heard something about Cessna producing a low cost entry level steam gauge aircraft and it wasn't the Skycatcher. Is that just a rumor? It seems like a 150 type or an ercoupe type would bridge the gap between the fat ultralight and the six figure LSA. I would think the industry would sell a ton of them, especially flight schools.

 

[Silvaire]

Don't think you will ever see the 150 qualify for light sport,The cessnas and Cherokee 140 s are to plentifull and to cheap to purchase which could kill the sales of the new LSAs.cessna launched their own lsa to compete and piper had a try at it.

The legacy aircraft that qualify under Sport Pilot rules are not LSA and changing the rules (weight restriction) isn't going to alter that. It's only a matter of them being legal for Sport Pilots to operate. They remain certificated in the original category they were manufactured under.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

The legacy aircraft that qualify under Sport Pilot rules are not LSA and changing the rules (weight restriction) isn't going to alter that. It's only a matter of them being legal for Sport Pilots to operate. They remain certificated in the original category they were manufactured under.

They are not certificated as S-LSA or E-LSA, but according to the FARs, they are indeed, by definition, light sport aircraft.

Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:
(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than—
(i) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water; or
(ii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
(2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH ) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.
(3) A maximum never-exceed speed (VNE ) of not more than 120 knots CAS for a glider.
(4) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1 ) of not more than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity.
(5) A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot.
(6) A single, reciprocating engine, if powered.
(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider.
(8) A fixed or feathering propeller system if a powered glider.
(9) A fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if a gyroplane.
(10) A nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.
(11) Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider.
(12) Fixed or retractable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
(13) Fixed or retractable landing gear for a glider.

 

[Silvaire]

They are not certificated as S-LSA or E-LSA, but according to the FARs, they are indeed, by definition, light sport aircraft.

Which is a perfect example of how contrived the FAR's are because those aircraft are not, in any way shape or form, LSA outside of the fact that a person with a Sport Pilot certificate can legally fly one. I watched all of this develop and evolve and Henning is right that it originally was all about reining in the fat UL's but it just got completely out of hand. So you've got folks writing rules about LSA certification and you've got folks writing rules about SP certification and you've got the influence/pressure from the whole proposed rule making process and what do you end up with?

A cluster f#%k

 

[SoloEqs]

You're arguing about an arbitrary definition.

If it meets the LSA standards -- or has a waiver, like the A5 -- then a Sport Pilot can fly it. That's all that matters.

The A5 got its waiver because the FAA considered spin recovery to be important enough to give them an MTOW approaching 1800 lbs. Since certificated planes which otherwise meet LSA standards have the same or superior spin recovery capabilities, then they should likewise be able to get waivers to the same MTOW that the A5 got. That would bring just about all of the low-performance two-holers to Sport Pilots (for instance, the C150 stalls at 48 and has a top speed of 122)

 

[Silvaire]

You're arguing about an arbitrary definition.

If it meets the LSA standards -- or has a waiver, like the A5 -- then a Sport Pilot can fly it. That's all that matters...

No I'm not and no it doesn't. You're talking about Pilot certification and I'm talking about Airworthiness certification. A J3 Cub is NOT an LSA despite the fact that a Sport Pilot can legally fly it.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Reference: http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/cfi_guide.pdf

The chart on page 13 might be helpful.

Give us your tired, your incompetent, your sickly, your under-trained and let them go fourth into the skies, as the majestic dodo birds they were meant to be!

Many sport pilots do have endorsements for certain types of
controlled airspace or minimal or no experience with
ATC services

... would like to take advantage of the “driver’s license medical” afforded at the sport pilot level. Often these pilots have not flown for years, or decades

In addition to stick and rudder, and weight and balance training, these pilots generally need to be taught subjects such as the modern airspace system, telephone and computerized weather and flight planning

AAANNNDD who will help make the new generation of sportie pilots

.....a sport or private pilot can become a flight instructor eligible to teach at the sport level without costly and time-consuming instrument and commercial training

Oh wow, isnt that great, god forbid the trainers of these people have to spend some time and money on their own training.



After reading that article, I really do not want to share my skys with that demographic...... all I can say is wow

 

[Art VanDelay]

I had no idea Disdain had become a General. When last I checked he was still a Major.

 

[steingar]

Disdain is a fairly strong word in the capacious vocabulary of Steingar. However, the one thing I always see treated in a negative light is the lack of pilot training to get pilot ratings. I just don't see how less training is a good thing.

On the side of practicality there exists at the present time a much wider and less expensive array of aircraft that can be flown by a PPL but are not LSA compatible. There are many places where you can train for the PPL but not the SP. Given that you require training by a CFI to be able to qualify for the PPL after your SP, and given that it takes extra check rides I fail to see the basis for parsimony.

Most of the SP pilots I've met are either too old or too sick to pass a medical. Most of the accidents are these guys pranging their kites because they're too used to flying their Bo's.

That said, I would never say a bad word about someone flying their cub clone or powered thingamigig around the patch on sunny days. At least they're flying. Too many airplanes just sitting around gathering dust.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Disdain is a fairly strong word in the capacious vocabulary of Steingar. However, the one thing I always see treated in a negative light is the lack of pilot training to get pilot ratings. I just don't see how less training is a good thing.

On the side of practicality there exists at the present time a much wider and less expensive array of aircraft that can be flown by a PPL but are not LSA compatible. There are many places where you can train for the PPL but not the SP. Given that you require training by a CFI to be able to qualify for the PPL after your SP, and given that it takes extra check rides I fail to see the basis for parsimony.

Most of the SP pilots I've met are either too old or too sick to pass a medical. Most of the accidents are these guys pranging their kites because they're too used to flying their Bo's.

That said, I would never say a bad word about someone flying their cub clone or powered thingamigig around the patch on sunny days. At least they're flying. Too many airplanes just sitting around gathering dust.

If that is true then the SP accident rate has nothing to do with the lack of initial training time.

 

[steingar]

If that is true then the SP accident rate has nothing to do with the lack of initial training time.

According to this very interesting article, it is indeed.

 

[ClimbnSink]

According to this very interesting article, it is indeed.

Well there goes the less training time=death camp for pilot wannabes argument. Tellin ya all the SP hate is because those SP chumps don't have to jump as many flaming hoops as we did. All ego.

 

[Skylane81E]

Well there goes the less training time=death camp for pilot wannabes argument. Tellin ya all the SP hate is because those SP chumps don't have to jump as many flaming hoops as we did. All ego.

Strong words,

Maybe it is actually the opposite, we know how easy the hoops are to clear and how great the reward for the small effort.

 

[e.pie]

I don't get it either, SP seems like a great addition for people who aren't worried about doing anything more than buzzing around their local area.

 

[jbarrass]

Well there goes the less training time=death camp for pilot wannabes argument. Tellin ya all the SP hate is because those SP chumps don't have to jump as many flaming hoops as we did. All ego.

I agree. I think SP, LSA, driver's license medicals, parachutes, moving maps, GPS, and composite airplanes are all progress. I wish our community wasn't so afraid of change........

 

[SoloEqs]

No I'm not and no it doesn't. You're talking about Pilot certification and I'm talking about Airworthiness certification. A J3 Cub is NOT an LSA despite the fact that a Sport Pilot can legally fly it.

The FARs don't agree with you. No offense, but I'll take THEIR word for it over YOURS.

 

[Skylane81E]

The FARs don't agree with you. No offense, but I'll take THEIR word for it over YOURS.

Depends,

It is an LSA in that a SP may fly it PIC

By certification standards it is NOT an LSA. This is important mostly for maintenance reasons, a LSA repairman wouldn't have an return to service authority for a J-3 and all other "normal" restrictions from FAR 43 apply.

 

[JB1842]

I don't get it either, SP seems like a great addition for people who aren't worried about doing anything more than buzzing around their local area.

That's why I went SP to start. I just wanted to fly around in the air for fun. I had no desire to make long cross countries, night flying, or flying to towered airports (which and SP can do with an endorsement, anyways), and have no family to worry about fitting in the back. The only reason I went private was becuase I won my 150. I had no issues preventing a 3rd class medical. My flying needs were just more suited to SP at the time.

 

[SoloEqs]

Give us your tired, your incompetent, your sickly, your under-trained and let them go fourth into the skies, as the majestic dodo birds they were meant to be!

You say that as if this is something new.

The guy who taught my dad how to fly was taught to fly in WWI. The first time he ever flew with someone else in the plane was when he became an instructor and barnstormer after the war. His training consisted of a couple of hours of taxiing practice with a "Penguin" (a Bleriot with half the wings clipped off), then he was told to go fly. He did, and came home an ace. He was still flying 60 years later (the last I heard of him), so I guess being "incompetent" and "undertrained" didn't see to hurt him any.

And then there are all of those guys flying around in ultralights, who didn't have to have any training at all, no medical at all . . .

Oh, and let's not forget to be scared of all of those guys who are flying around solo with 12 or 13 hours TT.

After reading that article, I really do not want to share my skys with that demographic

Feel free to stay on the ground and become extinct, like the majestic dodo bird you were meant to be. The rest of us won't even notice that you're hiding.

 

[valittu]

That's why I went SP to start. I just wanted to fly around in the air for fun. I had no desire to make long cross countries, night flying, or flying to towered airports (which and SP can do with an endorsement, anyways), and have no family to worry about fitting in the back. The only reason I went private was becuase I won my 150. I had no issues preventing a 3rd class medical. My flying needs were just more suited to SP at the time.

That's all I want to do, just logistically, having access to a light sport plane to fly caused me to change my goal. No matter what the rating, I will train to a level of proficiency that will ensure that I know what I'm doing. I am not trying to cut corners or take shortcuts.

 

[JB1842]

That's all I want to do, just logistically, having access to a light sport plane to fly caused me to change my goal. No matter what the rating, I will train to a level of proficiency that will ensure that I know what I'm doing. I am not trying to cut corners or take shortcuts.

I was lucky. My school has 3 Cubs, and 1 is almost always available for rent.

 

[Geico266]

That's all I want to do, just logistically, having access to a light sport plane to fly caused me to change my goal. No matter what the rating, I will train to a level of proficiency that will ensure that I know what I'm doing. I am not trying to cut corners or take shortcuts.

SP will serve you well then.

 

[Silvaire]

The FARs don't agree with you. No offense, but I'll take THEIR word for it over YOURS.

Take a look at the airworthiness certificate of a Cessna 162 or a Tecnam P92 and note, first the color (pink) and secondly the title: "SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE"

Next, check the airworthiness certificate of a Piper Cub or Aeronca Champ and note the color (white) and the title: "STANDARD AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE"

Finally, try to get an annual inspection signed or a maintenance action performed on a Piper Cub by someone holding a Light Sport Repairman certificate and while your at it may as well ignore all those pesky Airworthiness Directives because they don't apply to LSA.

Right?

I know you are saying the FAA has a list of standard category LSA and I'm just saying that only means that a Sport Pilot can operate them. They do not, in any other way, conform to the rules that govern a Light Sport Aircraft. The manufacturing and maintenance standards are completely different.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

You say that as if this is something new.

The guy who taught my dad how to fly was taught to fly in WWI. The first time he ever flew with someone else in the plane was when he became an instructor and barnstormer after the war. His training consisted of a couple of hours of taxiing practice with a "Penguin" (a Bleriot with half the wings clipped off), then he was told to go fly. He did, and came home an ace. He was still flying 60 years later (the last I heard of him), so I guess being "incompetent" and "undertrained" didn't see to hurt him any.

Lol that's because they didn't know better, back then there was SOO little known about aviation and teaching new pilots.

Want to compare the training fatalities from WWI compared to the guys learning how to fly in the T6As nowadays???

And then there are all of those guys flying around in ultralights, who didn't have to have any training at all, no medical at all . . .

Yeah, I don't think that's helping your argument any, there are some spectactular ultralight failures on you tube (both man and machine)

Oh, and let's not forget to be scared of all of those guys who are flying around solo with 12 or 13 hours TT. .

Invalid argument, they are STILL STUDENTS, I 100% support having more supervised solo time (something that the SP does not do to the extent of the PPL).

Also on a side note, SP "pilots" are not ICAO recognized

The rest of us won't even notice that you're hiding..

I agree

Ultralight/SP "pilots" often don't even notice my C208B on final with strobes and recog lights on.

 

[RJM62]

According to this very interesting article, it is indeed.

Well, there's not much there to really go on. What is there seems to suggest transition difficulties, which makes sense because the new S-LSA have different flight and control characteristics from either fat ultralights or Part 23 airplanes. It's also significant that they noted a lower accident rate among pilots whose training was in LSA.

I have to be honest, as someone who's flown several new S-LSA models... I think too much is being compromised to make new S-LSA look and feel like "real" airplanes while staying within the LSA weight limit. I'm not aware of any of them that are intentionally spinnable, for example. That's why I chose to do spin training in a Cub. None of the LSA at the FBO were spinabble.

The article mentioned loss of control and structural failure as factoring into the accident rates, and I really believe that's more a function of the weight limit than anything else. I don't want to call these aircraft flimsy, but... well, some of them feel flimsy to me.

I also don't completely buy the "inferior training" hypothesis except inasmuch as the standards weren't developed with the current crop of S-LSA in mind. I particularly dislike the fact that so many of them have glass cockpits. I'll admit that I personally dislike glass anyway, so there's some prejudice there; but I also think that learning to use and interpret the instrumentation is not something FAA had in mind when they came up with the training standards.

That doesn't make glass "bad," but I don't think anyone would disagree that it does make for another set of learning tasks; and I seriously doubt that FAA factored that set of tasks into the standards.

On a more personal, "hunch" sort of level, I also think that the less instrumentation an airplane has, the better it is for early primary training, when the "feel" factor of flying is being learned. If I had my way, every student would have to have some time in a Cub, Champ, or something along those lines (or one of the LSA from the fat ultralight heritage), for that reason.

Then again, more and more ultralights nowadays have a Dynon EFIS, so maybe I'm letting my prejudices get in the way.

-Rich

EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't believe that raising the weight limit would necessarily help very much. I suspect manufacturers would use most of that extra weight for more bells and whistles and creature comforts than for any meaningful improvements in structural integrity or flight characteristics.

 

[weilke]

Also on a side note, SP "pilots" are not ICAO recognized

Neither are the TERPS criteria used to construct approaches in the US or the way lumber is measured. Meaningless argument. The only country you would ever want to fly to in a LSA from the US is Canada, they have a process in place to recognize the US registration (if you really want to fly your LSA kite across the ocean, you can even get a permit to fly it in the Bahamas).

 

[frfly172]

Two CTs flew around the world ,a trip to the Bahamas would be a non event .the ocean doesn't know your in an lsa.No different than going over in a certified two seater.

 

[e.pie]

The CT looks like a great plane on paper, one of the aero clubs here has a couple, I really need to get checked out in it and take it for a spin.

 

[SoloEqs]

Take a look at the airworthiness certificate of a Cessna 162 or a Tecnam P92 and note, first the color (pink) and secondly the title: "SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE"

Gee, just like the AC in civilianized military aircraft! How about that!

Next, check the airworthiness certificate of a Piper Cub or Aeronca Champ and note the color (white) and the title: "STANDARD AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE"

YMMV. There are quite a few Cubs and Airknockers with Special or Experimental ACs.

Finally, try to get an annual inspection signed or a maintenance action performed on a Piper Cub by someone holding a Light Sport Repairman certificate and while your at it may as well ignore all those pesky Airworthiness Directives because they don't apply to LSA.

Try to get an annual signed off by a freshly-hatched A&P. There is no surprise in there being different maintenance and inspection certifications.

I know you are saying the FAA has a list of standard category LSA and I'm just saying that only means that a Sport Pilot can operate them. They do not, in any other way, conform to the rules that govern a Light Sport Aircraft. The manufacturing and maintenance standards are completely different.

They don't have to conform in any way other than the standards in the FARs.

 

[SoloEqs]

Lol that's because they didn't know better, back then there was SOO little known about aviation and teaching new pilots.

Want to compare the training fatalities from WWI compared to the guys learning how to fly in the T6As nowadays???

By the time a student is in the T6A, they've gotten way past solo, so you're in the wrong place, and the T6A is tricycle gear, so it's apples and oranges anyhow.

Yeah, I don't think that's helping your argument any, there are some spectactular ultralight failures on you tube (both man and machine)

There are some spectacular failures of certificated aircraft, too, so your argument isn't any stronger.

Invalid argument, they are STILL STUDENTS, I 100% support having more supervised solo time (something that the SP does not do to the extent of the PPL).

I 100% support requiring all PPL candidates to show 10 spin recoveries and the ability to hand-prop engines up to 150 HP, but I don't think either one of us is going to get our wishes.

Also on a side note, SP "pilots" are not ICAO recognized

I guess this would matter to some people.

Ultralight/SP "pilots" often don't even notice my C208B on final with strobes and recog lights on.

Why should they notice what airline pilots don't notice? Go look at the reports of the PSA and Aeromexico midairs.

And I am amused by your implication that ULers aren't pilots. I guess you haven't been flying long enough to know that, for years, the only planes that Chuck Yeager owned were ultralights. Guess that means he's not a pilot, ha . . ?

 

[SoloEqs]

Just to be clear, I don't believe that raising the weight limit would necessarily help very much. I suspect manufacturers would use most of that extra weight for more bells and whistles and creature comforts than for any meaningful improvements in structural integrity or flight characteristics.

I don't much care what manufacturers would do with the increased MTOW standard -- what it would help would be to bring tens of thousands of Cessnas, Ercoupes, Airknockers, T-craft, etc under the LSA umbrella, where they belong.

The same way we used to say that "you're only one medical away from being an ultralight pilot," now it's "you're only one SKIPPED medical away from being a Sport Pilot." I wouldn't trade my <$15,000 150 for one of those >$150,000 flying sperm, like the Flycatcher. The 150 is a better plane, with a proven safety record, and I'd like to keep flying it after I stop spending the money for medicals needed to fly planes that I'll never own again.

 

[somorris]

The 150 is a better plane, with a proven safety record, and I'd like to keep flying it after I stop spending the money for medicals needed to fly planes that I'll never own again.

+1. The Class III medical can be very costly to maintain because the FAA often requires jumping through a lot of medical hoops only to FINALLY decide, "Oh, okay, this person is fit to fly." I suspect the government "infrastructure" to keep up with and process all the paperwork is also pretty expensive. The return on investment to pilots and taxpayers (direct costs for the medical and support cost for the FAA) I suspect is pretty dismal .

 

[steingar]

+1. The Class III medical can be very costly to maintain because the FAA often requires jumping through a lot of medical hoops only to FINALLY decide, "Oh, okay, this person is fit to fly." I suspect the government "infrastructure" to keep up with and process all the paperwork is also pretty expensive. The return on investment to pilots and taxpayers (direct costs for the medical and support cost for the FAA) I suspect is pretty dismal .

Compare accident rates due to medical incapacitation between glider pilots, sport pilots, and private pilots. They're statistically indistinguishable. The third class medical doesn't do anything but waste time and money.

 

[RJM62]

+1. The Class III medical can be very costly to maintain because the FAA often requires jumping through a lot of medical hoops only to FINALLY decide, "Oh, okay, this person is fit to fly." I suspect the government "infrastructure" to keep up with and process all the paperwork is also pretty expensive. The return on investment to pilots and taxpayers (direct costs for the medical and support cost for the FAA) I suspect is pretty dismal .

Considering that the SI criteria are known -- our own esteemed Doc Bruce can quote them in his sleep -- I've often wondered why FAA doesn't deputize certain highly-trusted Senior AME's to issue all third-class SI's in-office upon confirming that an airman has acceptably undergone whatever tests or evaluations are required for their SI. That would speed up the process for pilots while saving the taxpayers many dollars.

I suppose OKC would have to continue to approve SI's for second- and first-class, however, to preserve the illusion that a bureaucrat who never met the airman is better-qualified to determine their fitness than an AME who has the airman sitting in his office.

I'm becoming less and less convinced that the third-class medical has any predictive value whatsoever with regard to in-flight incapacitation, mainly because I can't find any evidence that it does. But if it's going to be required, then at least cut some of the red tape out of the process.

-Rich

 

[Silvaire]

I don't much care what manufacturers would do with the increased MTOW standard -- what it would help would be to bring tens of thousands of Cessnas, Ercoupes, Airknockers, T-craft, etc under the LSA umbrella, where they belong.

This is the point I keep trying to make with you without success; raising the LSA MTOW standard isn't going to bring those aircraft under any "umbrella". Other than a person with a Sport Pilot certificate being allowed to fly them, absolutely nothing else would change. They wouldn't get Special Airworthiness Certificates, you wouldn't be able to slap a Dynon EFIS in one and attending a 120 hour LSRM course would be a complete waste of time.

I happen to own a couple of aircraft that are in this category and although I'm not against the raising of the weight limit I believe the real solution is to eliminate the third class medical.

 

[Henning]

This is the point I keep trying to make with you without success; raising the LSA MTOW standard isn't going to bring those aircraft under any "umbrella". Other than a person with a Sport Pilot certificate being allowed to fly them, absolutely nothing else would change. They wouldn't get Special Airworthiness Certificates, you wouldn't be able to slap a Dynon EFIS in one and attending a 120 hour LSRM course would be a complete waste of time.

I happen to own a couple of aircraft that are in this category and although I'm not against the raising of the weight limit I believe the real solution is to eliminate the third class medical.

Exactly, that would require an Experimental Owner Maintenance category or some other reclassification. People continue to confuse SP with LSA.

 

[RJM62]

Exactly, that would require an Experimental Owner Maintenance category or some other reclassification. People continue to confuse SP with LSA.

Yep, and I think it's another area in which FAA was taken by surprise with regard to the S-LSA that manufacturers have come out with. They're a lot more complex and, in many cases, difficult to work on / inspect that what was anticipated when the Repairman - Light Sport certification was developed.

There's a lot of difference in the skill set needed to perform an annual "condition inspection" on a CT, Thorpedo, Tecnam Sierra, ICON A5 etc. as opposed to a Quicksilver MXL, Titan Tornado, Kolb MKII, etc.

-Rich

 

[SoloEqs]

Compare accident rates due to medical incapacitation between glider pilots, sport pilots, and private pilots. They're statistically indistinguishable. The third class medical doesn't do anything but waste time and money.

I don't think a year goes by without hearing about a pilot dropping dead on a jetliner flight deck, so the First Class isn't all that useful, either!

 

[SoloEqs]

This is the point I keep trying to make with you without success; raising the LSA MTOW standard isn't going to bring those aircraft under any "umbrella". Other than a person with a Sport Pilot certificate being allowed to fly them, absolutely nothing else would change. They wouldn't get Special Airworthiness Certificates, you wouldn't be able to slap a Dynon EFIS in one and attending a 120 hour LSRM course would be a complete waste of time.

I happen to own a couple of aircraft that are in this category and although I'm not against the raising of the weight limit I believe the real solution is to eliminate the third class medical.

You don't HAVE a point -- you're splitting hairs.

I'm talking about flying, and you're talking about terminology.